1
3
C00050
2
096
台灣大都會地區改善空氣品質之經濟效益評估與酸雨風險認知調查
Measuring the Economic Benefits of Air Quality Improvement and Investigation the Risk Attitude Towards Acid Rain in Taiwan's Metropolitan Areas
1.錢玉蘭
1.Yu-lan Chien
1.中華經濟研究院能源與環境研究中心
1.The Center for Energy and Enviromental Studies, Chung-Hua Institution of Economic Research
001,002,003,004
1.中華經濟研究院能源與環境研究中心
1.The Center for Energy and Enviromental Studies, Chung-Hua Institution of Economic Research
002
1.行政院環境保護署
1.Department of Health. Taiwan.R.O.C.
A.14 計畫執行期間(起):1995-09-01
A.14 計畫執行期間(訖):1996-06-30
1996-01-151996-02-29
A.16 收到日期:1996-12-02
1
台灣三大都會地區(台北、台中、高雄)具有國籍,設有戶籍,且年齡在二十歲以上的居民

1
508

508
001
01
C.2 聯絡日期:1999-01-07
2
1.中華經濟研究院能源與環境研究中心
1.The Center for Energy and Enviromental Studies, Chung-Hua Institution of Economic Research
1
1)須環保署同意;2)申請者需遵守使用規定;3)只能提供給合乎「學術調查研究資料庫」申請資格者;4)每一申請者須徵得計畫主持人同意

C.7 資料公開日期:1997-06-30
2
008
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
002
1,2
1.空氣品質
2.風險評估
3.經濟效益
4.酸雨
1.Acid Rain
2.Air Quality
3.Economic Efficiency
4.Risk Assessment
台灣自光復以來,經濟發展迅速被譽為「經濟奇蹟」,但長期污染環境的結果也被譏為豬圈文化。近年來國人環保意識增強,對生活環境品質的要求也逐漸提高,而根據本研究問卷調查結果顯示,台北及高雄地區約有半數的受訪者表示不滿意居住環境的空氣品質,台中地區則近有三分之一的受訪者不滿意,同時大多數的受訪者亦認為空氣污染問題是目前最需要改善的環境問題,顯示空氣污染問題已普遍受到民眾的重視。所幸政府有關單位自民國84年7月1日起,針對交通車輛及產業用戶隨油課徵空氣污染防制費(簡稱「空污費」),期望以經濟誘因的方式,誘導與鼓勵民眾能夠自發地改變其對各類油品之消費習慣,以期達到逐步改善空氣品質的最終目的。為使政策推行符合經濟效率的原則,極有必要衡量課徵空污費對民眾產生的成本與效益。空污費的大小即是改善空氣品質至某種程度的成本,若要了解空氣污染是否符合「經濟效率」,就必須了解一般民眾在此改善後之空氣品質下的經濟效益。本研究利用假設估價法,評估台灣三大都會區--台北、台中、高雄地區改善空氣品質的經濟效益。本研究將改善空氣品質的效益分為四部份:能見度效益、健康效益、清潔效益、減少建築物及車輛腐蝕效益。由於實證模型發現不同起價金額會影響受訪者的願付價值,因此本文估計的經濟效益係採消除起價偏誤後的估計結果。研究結果顯示,台北地區的民眾因空氣品質改善所獲得之個別經濟效益以清潔效益最大,健康效益次之,在其次為避免腐蝕效益,能見度效益則最低。台中地區與高雄地區的民眾因空氣品質改善所獲得的個別經濟效益同樣以清潔效益最大,其次為健康效益,至於能見度效益與避免腐蝕效益何者較大,則是空氣品質改善的程度而定。當空氣改善的程度較小時,能見度效益大於避免腐蝕效益;但當空氣品質改善的程度較大時,則反之。空污費逾85年徵收總額約69億三千多萬元,預計由工廠徵收三十九億五千餘萬元(57%),由車輛徵收二十九億八千餘元(43%);而各縣市執行共同性計畫之預期成果為削減各項污染物排放量20%(TSP:25%,Sox:18%,Nox:22%,CH:20%)。根據本研究估計,當空氣品質較現況改善20%時,台北地區的總效益為八十四億兩千七百萬元,台中地區為二十八億七千四百萬元,高雄地區為六十億五千七百萬元,合計約為一百一十四億七一百萬元。因此,如果六十九億之空污費真能達到削減各項空氣污染物之預期執行率20%,則民眾所得的效益將遠大於其成本。而且此三大都會區的人口數約只佔全台灣地區總人口數之一半,因此估計全台灣地區民眾因空氣品質改善所獲得之經濟效益將更大。那麼,在效益遠小於成本的情況下,社會最適空氣污染防治率應大於目前空污費之預期執行率20%。此研究結果亦可說明:在未來空污費徵收金額增多,而且空氣污染物削減率較高時,社會應可得到較大之福利水準。

As the economy continues to develop, people in Taiwan are demanding a better living environment. In order to improve air quality, the Environment protection Agency (EPA) has established ambient and emission standards to regulate the emission levels of both stationary and mobile sources of pollution. In addition, since July 1995,the EPA requires all vehicles and industrial plants to pay an "air pollution control fee"(APCF) whenever they buy different kinds of fuel oil. The EPA plans to use economic incentive to change people's consumption of fuel oil, and the fee collected will be allocated to activities which improve air quality. Some people still question the reasonableness of the APCF, especially the overall objective of APCF , and the way and amount of APCF collected. Some even question the effectiveness of the APCF. All of these doubt pose obstacles to the smooth implementation of the APCF policy. In order to implement the APCF policy efficiently, it is crucial to evaluate the benefits and costs of the policy. The purpose of this research is use the contingent valuation method to estimate people's economic benefits gained from improving air quality in Taiwan's metropolitan areas, including Taipei, Taichung,and Kaoshiung. The economic benefits contain four parts: visibility benefit, cleanness benefit of decreasing building's erosions. Also, the general public's attitude and knowledge toward acid rain will be investigated. The results of this research will provide some insights on the APCF policy. In the visibility benefit model, people tend to pay less to improve air quality if they are older or, on average, participate more outdoor activities. In contrast, those who work, have higher income and education level, and frequently exposed to the polluted environments are willing to pay more to improve air quality. Besides, the empirical study shows that people's attitude to the theory of decreasing marginal utility of visibility. As to the health benefit model, symptoms such as eye irritation, asthma, headache, respiration problems, cardiovascular disease, and skin problems are considered. The empirical result shows that people with troubled respiration system pay higher WTP, but people with headache-related problems pay smaller WTP. On the contrary, asthma and eye irritation that are normally believed to be related to air pollution actually do not affect people's WTP. Moreover, when other factors remain unchanged, people from Taipei pay the greatest WTP, then Taichung, and the least is Kaoshiung. Other than that, different level of air quality improvement also affects people's WTP; this conforms to the theory of decreasing marginal utility of air quality. In the cleanness benefit model, people have better education, work, spend more money on cleaning, are in charge of cleaning the house pay higher WTP, but time spent on doing such does not affect their WTP. This may be due to the reason that interviewees are not necessarily the ones who are responsible for household cleaning and laundry. Since area dummy variables are very significantly in this model, people of the three metropolitan areas gain different cleaning benefit. While other factors remain unchanged, people from Kaoshiung have the greatest WTP, followed by Taichung and Taipei. In the model of benefit of decreasing erosions, people work, have better education and higher income, spend more time in the outdoors pay higher WTP, This is also true for those who themselves spend more time on caring or repairing automobiles and building. In contrast, people who pay more money to have their automobiles washed pay less WTP. Moreover, people are WTP for the erosions benefit does not vary significantly among the three metropolitan areas. The project shows the three metropolitan areas receive different levels in the four economic benefits by improving air quality. According from greatest to least, Taipei receives cleanness benefit, health benefit, benefit of decreasing erosions, and visibility benefit. Taichung and Kaoshiung also benefit the greatest in cleanness and then health. As for the level of benefit in decreasing erosions and visibility, it depends on the level of air quality improvement. When improvement is small, the visibility benefit is greater than benefit of decreasing erosions, and vice versa. In the year of 1996, 6 billion 930 million NT dollars of APCF has been collected. The pollutant emission amount also decreases by 20% (TSP: 25%, Sox: 18%, Nox: 22%, CH: 20%). According to this project's estimation, when present air quality improve 20%, the total benefits amount to 17 billion 358 million NT dollars. If only considering the considering the economic benefit for people over 20 years old, the total benefits amount to 11 billion 471 million NT dollars. Therefore, if that 6 billion 930 million NT dollars APCF can reach the goal of 20% air quality improvement, the public social benefits will far exceed the costs. The population of the three metropolitan areas is only half of entire population in Taiwan. Thus, if the economic benefit estimation takes in the entire Taiwan area, the public social benefit will even be greater.IN this case, the social optimum level for air quality improvement should be greater than the anticipated 20%.

D.16 完成檢誤日期:2000-04-08
D.17 預定釋出日期:0000-00-00
D.18 初次釋出日期:2000-04-22
D.19_1 最新版釋出日期:2000-04-22
1
1
1
2
1,1,3
10.6141/TW-SRDA-C00050-1
http://efenci.srda.sinica.edu.tw/webview/index.jsp?object=http://efenci.srda.sinica.edu.tw:80/obj/fStudy/C00050
追蹤清單
下載(0)
申請(0)
遠距(0)